HiAndTight

They'd still have a MLE with whom they could sign someome.

Lots of rather large holes in this but let's just keep it simple. They vote on the award at the end of the regular season. At that time, the guy who won the award had done more to improve his team from the previous year. The guy you're touting had actually seen his team win fewer games. So given those facts, it far from "ridiculous". If you want to argue that it's ridiculous that awards are given without the entire season, (including playoffs) in mind, then that's something I can get on board with. You're right. That's the award that shouldn't be a regular season award however is my thinking. That the other executives thought Horst was the best at the end of the regular season is not ridiculous. That this award is voted on at that time is. I can see the other awards, they're voted on by the writers. But the Executives vote on the Executive of the year and that should be done after the playoffs as the whole point is to win a Title. So I stand corrected, it wasn't ridiculous Horst won it, I think the way they do it is ridiculous.

I never said he would wouldn't be waived so stop with that nonsense. I said he shouldn't be waived, and I've already been proven right about his value because of the fact that he was literally the 2nd-best player in the playoffs on a 60-win team. Where you're completely lost is on his real value if you think he's only worth $4.5m after the way he played the last 3 months of the season. It's okay though. Sometimes it's hard for casual fans to understand how valuable a guy like him is without the flashy numbers. I'm cautiously optimistic that the Bucks understand it too, but if not, they wouldn't be the first team to over-value box score stats and underestimate intangibles. I didn't say he would be claimed either, just that there's a good chance he would be. He might be waived or he might not. He might be claimed or he might not. I don't have a strong opinion either way. My argument is, and always has been, about what I think he's worth and how valuable he is, not about predicting what's actually going to happen, so knock it off with turning it into that. I've been talking about how good he is since January while everyone else thought he was just an average back-up PG on an expiring contract. I've been saying they should keep him at his current contract because they can't afford to lose him, not because I have any insight into whether they're going to or not. I have no way of knowing if they'll keep him or not. I have no way of knowing if he would be claimed on waivers. I can only speculate. I think some team will see that he's an asset on his current contract, and I hope it's the Bucks... but I'm not inside their heads. His performance in the playoffs proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that I had a pretty good understanding all along of how valuable players like him really are, and trying to turn it into an argument into predicting what happens with him is just deflecting the fact that you were completely wrong in your assessment of his value. Pretty much everyone acted like I was nuts in January when I said they should keep him on his current deal. How exactly have you been "proven right?" If OTB thinks Hill is worth 4.5 million(I haven't seen him say that, but if he does) he may be undervaluing him. Certainly not nearly as much as you're overvaluing him. And again, it's not just 3 months he played poorly. It was his entire season and the previous post-season. You're also grossly over-valuing a player who made very little impact this year and who struggled with LeBron in the playoffs last year. Anyway, to steal a page from your books, It looks like I was actually right, they're going to use the cap space they have available and try to sign Lopez after they waive Hill(A foregone conclusion since the moment they traded for him). Here's the bottom line...and I man not be a "real" fan like you either, but there are two things you don't pay guys on. How much fat you can see on their arms from your TV and how they perform over a short period of time when every other indicator shows they're regressing. Hill's value is not 19 million dollars. It may be 6-7. 3 years, 21 million would work for me. Which brings me back to stretching Leuer, renouncing Mirotic and the Bucks could have the room to bring back Hill or another veteran PG and sign Lopez. Or just find a veteran PG in the season, Hill was basically a throw in to match contracts with from Cleveland. Look, Luke, you dug your heels in on Hill and he had a good playoffs, but these are his numbers in the post-season last year 29.3 MPG 31 pct 3 PT% 45 pct from the field 9 PPG 2.2 Assists 2.2 Rebounds Now, this regular season(not 3 months, the entire season, though his numbers were worse with the Bucks) 21.7 MPG 31 pct 3 PT% 45 pct FG% 7.6 PPG 2.6 RB 2.1 Assists And again, keep in mind that I used his FULL season numbers(if I'd just used his numbers with the Bucks they were quite it worse). You feel somehow you've "proven" that he's worth 19 million dollars next year because he was good in the playoffs? His numbers this past regular season where nearly identical to his numbers in last years post-season. Also, he was not the 2nd best playoff on the Bucks in the playoffs. Malcolm Brogdon was. But we did need him very much and he was injured for part of it. We do NOT need him at 19 million when there are a number of other guys we could have for much less money and I honestly don't get why you've spent so much time talking about George Hill. The only thing I can come up with is it's your way of telling everyone how right you are just like that truly ridiculous body fat obsession you have. And in fact, after looking at what he's done the last couple years, I don't see him getting much more than 4.5 million this off-season. I sure don't see any chance that a team picks him up on waivers. Maybe someone makes the mistake of overpaying him because he had a good playoff series, but that doesn't seem like it'd be a great idea. You don't pay a backup 19 million dollars because they were good coming off the bench in the post-season despite being just downright terrible for you in the regular season and bad in the previous postseason. Those are the mistakes that teams in every sport have been making for decades. Tell me how often that has worked out? Finally, if you don't believe George Hill is coming back, then why in God's name have you spent soooooo much time obsessing over him and telling everyone how right you are about him and how anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't understand the game as well as you do? This is what's truly confounding. With every discussion we've had about the Bucks off-season moves, you've included Hill into them, thereby eliminating the salary cap space they actually DO have right now even though you never really thought he was going to come back? I'm really trying to understand the point of this? Of course....we've already heard that whoever doesn't agree with you on matters related to the NBA isn't the type of intellectual you are, they're just a "casual" fan. Here are the facts from this "casual" fan. -Hill was the guy who's contract matched up in the Cavs trade. -He had a LOT of playoff exepriance, so that was a plus, but he was afterthought in the trade, the priority was getting Delly and Henson's money off the books. -He performed poorly in an extended playoff run though the finals last year with the Cavs. -He played poorly this regular season with the Cavs. -He played even worse in the regular season with the Bucks. -He stepped up big when Bledsoe got shook in the playoffs and played about 20 MPG, and despite disappeaering at times like Game 1 vs Toronto when he was held scoreless or game 4 when he also played poorly and scored 5 points, on the whole, he was very good for us in the post-season. Now explain to me how all that "proves" you were right that the Bucks should pay him 19 million dollars next season. Just saying you're right is easy and you do enjoy doing so. But how does ALL of that add up to 19 million dollars which again, for a CBA expert such as yourself surely knows, would equate to far more than that depending on how far into the luxury tax they go.

I'm done here. You're completely fabricating statements to try to further your argument. It was a regular season award. The Bucks improved by 16 games. Toronto by negative 1. Which GM did a better job improving his team during the regular season? The job of an executive is to build a CHAMPIONSHIP team. There is no question who did a better job of that. There is no need to fabricate a statement. The 2018-2019 NBA Champions=Toronto Raptors. They'd failed several years in a row to win a title, they did something drastic to change that. And I don't know where it says the Executive of the year award is supposed to go to the guy who did the best job improving the team in the regular season. Horst took the best player(who was already on his team) and added a couple guys who fit well, hired a good coach(though Ujiri also fired the coach of the year and hired an unknown who did a very good job). I'm glad our guy won it, but it's really kinda ridiculous in this case. It should have gone to the guy who risked the future of his franchise and that enormous risk paid off for him in a big way.

You're parting with Hiura or you're not getting him. I didn’t know Boyd was a bonafide ace Because he's not. ERA's of 4.39 and 5.27 the past two years, xFIP near 5, he's starting to get expensive, and he's seen a big jump in his K rate. And if he was a guy who threw in the mid to upper 90's and had made an adjustment to his mechanics that helped him improve his command or something that accounted for the big first half, you'd have a better case to argue that he was a bonadfide ace. But he's more like a Mike Fiers who's having a breakout year at about the same time Mike Fiers had one, but better. He's certainly got a lot of value, but we're not talking about Walker Buehler here. He's 28, throws in the low 90's and is having a great year.

You make an absolute statement that you cannot get him without Hiura and godforbid someone questions you're authority to speak in absolutes about what will and will NOT happen, you create a strawman argument and claim that everyone on here believes we're going to be able to get him for Dubon and Ray. Who actually said that? Who actually said we'd get him for those two players? You do realize we have more than 3 players in our farm system? Also, he's 28 and has produced 2.1 and 2.2 WAR the previous two years before his breakout year this year. He looks to me like Mike Fiers if he'd have put together a huge year in 2016 and been a few years younger He's extremely valuable and we'd have to give up a lot for him. But you DO NOT know if it's Hiura of nothing to get him. In fact, I REALLY doubt it's a top 15 prospect who's already shown he can hit big league pitching or NOTHING. Turang, Grisham, Rasmussen and Ray...that wouldn't do it because there's no Keston Hiura? We've got no clue, so lets not pretend we do.

None of this is in dispute. What IS in dispute is the value of a guy like Lewis Brinson. Prospect value CAN be kind of predictive in aggregate (the top 25 prospects every year will likely produce XXX amount of WAR in their careers....however, most of that value is coming from 5 guys or so, then the rest of it is coming from the next 5-8 guys or so and the other 50%+ of guys in that top 25 will literally produce 0 value to an MLB club. (My numbers are approximate. I'd welcome correction from those in the know) Right, I'm not disputing that they are using analytics to evaluate trades, I'm disputing that they're using them as stringently as they're being used on here, ie, a lower end top 100 prospect is worth Xfuture WAR, so he has this much value while Will Smith will only be on the team for half a year, so his value is 1.2 WAR, so we end out coming 20 million dollars behind in this trade, so I'm gonna pass. That's what I''m questioning.

They would seem to, even if it's not the exact way we can use publically available data. I don't see how this supports that GM's are using surplus value in the ways that have been suggested in this thread to upgrade their teams in deadline deals at all. Analytics are extremely important in baseball, but I don't think a GM is going to pass up trading a guy with a 45 grade for example for a pitcher he feels can fortify his BP because when you project what a player with a 45 grade averages out to vs a dominant reliever over half a season, you end up with negative surplus value. Theo certainly didn't do that when he traded for Chapman. Also, there was too much for me to read through in there, but did they actually have quotes or comments from any GMs?

If we're lucky, we could toss in one of those power hitting, high OBP catchers that teams have too many of for a low-level lottery pick into the deal as well!

How often are elite offensive catchers available? I'd think if any position would get you a big return as a rental, it'd be a catcher on pace to hit over 30 Hr's, and one who's been one of the best catchers the last few years. The only reason they rarely fetch a big return is that you rarely find one who gets dealt. But as others have pointed out, why are we even talking about this? Because of a losing streak? One that every team goes through? 1st place two days ago to sellers now! I'm sure Stearns is prepared for that unlikely scenario, but I don't think we're even CLOSE to actually being in that position. We're just going through the normal ebbs and flows of playing 162 games in 180 days or however many days it is now.

So you'd want to trade Grandal...but not for prospects or younger players, you want to trade the middle of the order bat who catches for a pitcher? Weren't you upset that Stearns didn't go out and upgrade the catcher position last year? Apologies if I'm mistaken.

Huh...they sign a D-2 player and it's not Hinton. Having zero knowledge of him beyond the three links you posted, I guess a guy that's hitting 3's at that rate is always reason for optimism. Maybe he becomes a Korver type player. Still holding out hope there is anohter signing or two to come.

I do like that Boston's really falling apart. Ainge just never pulled off that big deal for that other superstar. He could have gone after Paul George, but he wasn't willing to take the risk that OKC did. He didn't go after Kawhi, again, because they were only guaranteed one year. They've passed on a few other guys and now Kyrie is gone, Horford, one of the only real impact FA's to sign in Boston is opting out of 30 million in the late stages of his career to leave. Rozier I can't imagine coming back(though they could massage that relationship if Kyrie leaves). I do think Gordon Heyward is going to bounce back. It was a whole lot to expect him to come back from that injury this quickly. Paul George had a similar injury and he's a freak, but now your best players are Brown, Tatum and Heyward. Those three can't play together on a good team. So it looks like Ainge waited too long to use all his assets and has little to show for one of the great all-time heists in that Brooklyn trade. I guess they should still end up with a great asset in that Memphis trade that will be unprotected in two years, but it's a long way off from where they were just a year ago coming off an ECF's appearance without their two best players.

I love Horford, but at his age and with the number of guys they would lose, I don't see any way it would be worth it. I very much doubt you'd get Hill with the room MLE. In fact, I don't think he'd clear waivers. I'm pretty sure a bad team with cap space and no free agency aspirations would claim him just to flip him to a contender for assets later. He is an asset on an expiring contract at $18m. He was literally the best PG in the East playoffs this season. Mirotic is another loss, and the room MLE is even lower than the tax-payer MLE so you'd have a hard time competing for the caliber of free agents that are looking for an MLE from a contender. And you obviously have to stretch Leuer. You can justify it with the immediate benefits, but Hawes and Sanders were justified for the same reasons and look how much we need a few million more in payroll flexibility now. Stretching Leuer is a terrible option IMO with a Giannis super-max looming and raises for young guys. So you're talking about losing Hill, Mirotic, and the full MLE for Horford. Again, I love him, but he wasn't even that much better than Hill in the playoffs this year. And all that is counting on Brogdon not to sign an offer sheet during the moratorium, even though it's in his best interest to do so. Hill's gone. We both realistically know that. The only debate is if you WANT them to sign him. But it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the Bucks aren't going to bring him back. He's getting older and while he was very good in the playoffs this last year(best in the East isn't a high standard given Philly doesn't really have one, Kyrie had the worst stretch of his career, I'd argue Lowry was better as a whole given that he did it in the finals as well, but that's really the only other team) he was pretty bad in the playoffs the year before and he wasn't very good over the 47 games he played for the Bucks in the regular season. If the MLE isn't enough for him to sign then he's gone. So the only guy that'd they'd really lose that they wouldn't otherwise would be Mirotic and I don't think he's coming back. Esecially since we actually have a player in house who can replace his minutes in Wilson. And I know that signing Horford is about as realistic as the Bucks keeping Hill, so it's also just an academic exercise, but they could work it out so that they would have the full MLE available if they stretch Leuer and renounce Mirotic's rights and then sign Horford and use that MLE BEFORE they finalize any deal with Middleton and Brogdon. You'd have to have both on board though, and you'd have to be able to come to an agreement with whoever you're using that MLE on before the signings happen. We'll see what Hill does, I don't think he earns more than the MLE this year. The playoffs factor in more in BB than other sports, but I don't think it factors in more than regular season production and Hill is coming off his worst and had his least effective season this past year than any year since his rookie year. Especially when he came to Milwaukee. He shot 28 pct from 3, he just wasn't as effective this past year as he'd been just about any other year in his career. So I don't think teams are going to be lining up for Hill despite the fact that he was VERY good for us in the playoffs. Anywawy, there's a path to being able to sign Horford with cap space, use a full MLE and keep Midds and Brogdon, they'd just all have to be on the same page and the Bucks would have to be willing to pay big for an aging big man who's going to make a ton of money in year 4 at...what, 37, 38 years old? I think even if he was willing to take 3 years and 75 million or so that'd be too expensive for the Bucks given what they're committing, and I doubt he leaves Boston for less than 4/90 after turning down 31 this year. But IF in some fantasy world they could work this out....you'd run it back next year with almost the same team, but a better big in Horford and a more experienced team...and hopefully an improved Giannis.

How about an outside the box signing of Al Horford? It'd be next to impossible and everything would have to fall just right, but they could give him the 4 year 90 million dollar deal he'd be looking for if they signed everyone in the right order. You'd obviously been moving on from Lopez, but that's fine because Horford is a much better player than Lopez. He gives Embid absolute fits and he gave us fits. Everyone associated with the Celtics have said he has been their most important player, he made the Hawks look like a much better team. You'd regret the backend of the deal, but man, if they could bring in Horford, get Hill with the MLE, sign Middleton and then Brogdon in that order after renouncing Mirotic, it's something that's POSSIBLE they could pull off. I think that would make the Bucks the clear cut favorites to win the title next year by a pretty significant margin. It's less than a 1 pct chance, but thoughts? Would it be too much in 4 years to be paying Horford lets say 30 million dollars, Midds 37, Giannis 47 and Brogdon 15? Not if they won a couple titles in the meantime, but that'd be a big if. But I can't think of a better fit next to Giannis than Horford. Given the absurdly thin needle, they'd need to thread I can't see it, but Boston reporters immediately connected him with Milwaukee when it turned out that he was opting out.

Remember before the season the posts about him on here? How he wasn't an NBA prospect, he'd end up riding the bench for Kentucky? I think those were largely UW fans who felt slighted, but there were quite a few of them. Wish he'd have gone to UW, but he obviously made the right decision.

Great-great post.

Yeah, don't care what his career stats were, he was breaking out that year and was absolutely becoming our ace. He has a 3.05 FIP in 2017 along with 10.2 K's per 9, a 4.15 SO/BB rate and he finished 9th in the Cy Young voting despite missing the last few weeks. You weren't paying attention if you didn't see that he was becoming an ace and there was absolutely ZERO chance the Brewers were going to non-tender him at that point. There's not a team in the league that would have non-tendered him at that point. And getting expensive? He made 3.7 last year and 3.7 this year. But really, this time, DON'T take my word for it, he's an actual link; https://blogs.fangraphs.com/ace-and-kinesiologist-jimmy-nelson/ Nelson was without question pitching like an ace when he got hurt.

I've seen SOOO many of your posts, I read it carefully. If they do the things you want them to do they'll be fine, yeah, I get it. What happens when Hiura struggles up here? Which WILL happen. He struck out in 1/3rd of his PA's and that's when he was doing well. I mean, I already know, you'll say he's overrated and to trade him before his stock drops, so it's a hypothetical.

I don't think he's special, but I do think his current struggles are being exaggerated. He's hammered some balls to straightaway center that have been right at guys. He's already a streaky hitter, then you add in some bad luck and sure, he'll look bad. I don't think his defense is overrated, but I think that's more a matter of opinion now because I just don't trust most defensive metrics on IF'ers anymore with the shifting. If you want to bring up Dubon, he's hot, that'd be fine. Saladino you know what you have and it's not much. But two main things. 1-I am realizing why I don't post in IGT's, the reactionary stuff is absurd(not referring to you, just the whole, "we're down 3-0, the sky is falling" stuff and then my reason for not wanting to send him down, I don't think he's really earned a demotion at this point. He's had a really bad June, but he's also had a .163 BABIP and it's not like he's striking out 40 pct of the time. I'm on board with sending Shaw down. I don't know that sending Arcia down accomplishes anything. He's a glove first defensive SS with a .680 OPS after a really bad month. And with that, I'm gonna just leave the IGT. It's too reactionary/sky is falling as I said. I get as annoyed with all the bashing of the Brewers organization and what Stearns should have done type hindsight as I do with the Brewers struggling.

That makes it all the worse. To suggest that the Brewers should have just dumped their young ace. And I'm certainly not taking your word for it. Pitchers have absolutely come back from injuries similar to Nelson's.

Of course they will ... as long as we stand pat with our season-long-under-performers. Yup, season's over! One day after falling out of first place by half a game...despite having two of our middle of the order bats struggle badly and having an incredibly tough schedule to start the season, the Brewers are clearly done for. And we all know Stearns is scared to make a move. He won't do anything. In fact, I'm pretty sure he's trying to lose.

Please tell me more about how poorly run this organization is? And what's this "prioritize personal relationships" nonsense? They simply didn't want to give up on a guy who's been one of the most productive 3rd basemen in the game the last couple years after a bad couple months. There's isn't much to get other than he's been really-really good, now he's struggling and they're hoping he bounces back. They've got Hirura ready to go whenever they want to bring him back. Someone help me out, does Shaw still have an option remaining? If so, that's the solution. If not, then..opps, that wrist is bothering him again(and it may actually be, you seldom seem hitters drop off this much). He has an option and they should have used it weeks ago. Period. Well...when someone finishes a sentence actually writing out the word period instead of just using one, then that means they're automatically right! Just to be clear, he was in the minors weeks ago. He'll likely be optioned back down. But the Brewers were always going to send Hiura back down for a while. They weren't keeping him up with the service time considerations. We're proabably just about clear now that he can come back up and I'm sure he will in a few days. PERIOD.

I don't think Nelson is ever going to be more than a middle/back of the rotation arm again. You can just see it in how the balls move for him now. I don't think this is something that's going to get better with time. He may well learn to pitch better and adjust, but his stuff is not coming back. You see it in the FB by far the most. His fastball had late life..and the fact that he could hit 97 didn't hurt. Not saying his career's done by any means, he's competitive enough that he'll figure out a way to be effective with the stuff he has now. But I was really hoping we'd see a version of the older Nelson and that with time he'd get most of the way back. I don't think there's much hope of that now. Of all the injurys you dont want a pitcher to get its a labrum. Many never come back from that. I would much rather see a Tommy John. It's actually almost a positive when a young pitcher, a college arm for instance has already had a TJ and is back pitching. Not literally, but you know most will get it at some point and most are now coming back with more velocity and the success rate is extremely high. You have no idea what's going to happen with a pitcher and a shoulder injury. You could get a guy like Clemens who comes back or you could get a Bedard. It's hit or miss. Probably more miss. I had hoped because of Jimmy's background and work ethic he'd overcome those odds. And he has come back. I just am not sure why his fastball looks so different. I guess they "cleaned up" his delivery. That was pretty much code for, "the Brewers ruined another young guy" in the early 2000s. He got healthy enough to come back and start at the big league level. If he changed his delivery, change it back. You could tell from the very first start he wasn't the same guy. There were reports that because of his fastball movement now, his off-speed stuff wasn't working as well. I guess now I know what they meant by that.

What are you talking about? Is this a serious post? So you think it would have been wise at the time for the Brewers to just let Nelson go? You don't think that maybe 15-20 other teams would have lined up to pay him to see if he could come back? And what injury did he have that NOBODY has ever come back from? Because plenty have actually come back from a torn Labrum. It's tough and many haven't, but saying nobody has ever done it is NOT true. Man, there is some ridiculous stuff on here. Sure, it'd be really easy to decide what to pay guys after the season and after you see how their rehab goes. But there was no way the Brewers were going to pinch pennies and not bring a guy like Nelson back. That would have been monumentally stupid and it's only being floated now with the benefit of hindsight.